dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3907
share rss forum feed

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

Andrews Wireless - Bans all usage of Streaming video?

I have a Friend Using a Wireless ISP Called Andrews wireless apparently they were told if they used netflix or anything of the sort they would be banned from the service? Anyone know if this is true seems kinda brutal to pay $50 a month and be banned from usage of netflix and even youtube etc..?
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
Have Andrews Wireless point out where such things are forbidden in their ToS:

»www.andrewswireless.net/Andrews%···erms.pdf

I'm not seeing anything in there about streaming.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Ya i was just Told this is what he was told specifically when he signed up. I was curious.
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to morisato
Ask the ISP to prove that your friend agreed to something outside the standard ToS. If Bell can play that game...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08
reply to morisato
My company service's around some of andrew wireless's coverage around durham.

If he is interested I recommend having him contact us via our contact forum.

We offer 5 Mb/s down, 512Kb/s up 100GB Usage Limit for $34.99 per month on our residential package. We also offer services to other enterprise internet solutions.

We do not forbid the use of any of services on our network. If fact I encourage it, Netflix is great and has improved much since it launched.

If the limit is exceeded the connection is slowed to 1.5Mb/s down and 128k up until it resets the next month. You can still even stream netflix and youtube just fine at this speed at a reduced quality.

This allows us to ensure the service is always the full speed even during the peak hours for our customers and that we do not experience congestion.

We also do not traffic shape and have a Neutral Network we do not throttle or block any protocol's.

»ontariohighspeed.ca/
»ontariohighspeed.ca/Contact.php


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

1 edit
said by OHSrob:

If the limit is exceeded the connection is slowed to 1.5Mb/s down and 128k up until it resets the next month. You can still even stream netflix and youtube just fine at this speed at a reduced quality.

First, I apologize ahead of time if this is a bit harsh, but I've never had the opportunity to directly discuss this issue with an ISP so I'll be straight to the point.

I find it absolutely disgusting that any company throttles a connection. If your network cannot handle the speeds that you are offering 24/7 to all of your customers, then why do you offer it in the first place? And I don't want to hear this BS double-speak about "up to" speeds.

You wouldn't go to a gas station and pay for a full tank of gas and only receive half a tank and be OK with it would you? You wouldn't go to McDonald's and pay for a big mac and only get a cheeseburger would you? How would you like being told "too bad sir, you used too much gas today or ate too many big macs and while you paid for a full tank/big mac, we just don't have the stock to give you what you paid for!"

This attitude is absolutely ludicrous, and forgive me again for being frank, but absolutely no one should subscribe to your service unless absolutely necessary, IMHO. Though I guess when you're the only option for people, you can do pretty much whatever you want....

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by rednekcowboy:

If your network cannot handle the speeds that you are offering 24/7 to all of your customers, then why do you offer it in the first place?

No residential ISP can guarantee that. Not a single one. Some are better at making it seem like that than others, but none are actually truly capable of it.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
Funny, I'm getting the exact speed I was told I would with Ebox and no throttling......I'm not talking about what you are capable of receiving, I'm talking about throttling because they can't deliver the speeds 24/7 as advertised. If you can only get 1.5 Mbps at your location, then that is all you can get and ISP's now usually have a wide range of packages to cover that. However the isp purposely slowing down your connection because their network cannot handle the bandwidth they are selling is what I object to....

This idea of throttling because of overuse is archaic at best and almost criminal at worst depending on how it is implemented.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by rednekcowboy:

I'm not talking about what you are capable of receiving, I'm talking about throttling because they can't deliver the speeds 24/7 as advertised.

I'm also not talking about what you're capable of receiving. I'm talking about what the ISP is able to deliver to their entire customer base at any point.

No residential ISP could deliver the full speed to every customer at the same time. Not Ebox, not anyone. They all rely on overselling capacity, under the idea that not everyone uses their full speed at the same time. Some do a better job of managing that balance than others.

You might find it odd, but there are people who would rather have a higher speed that may go lower based on certain factors than a slower speed that won't.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by bt:

said by rednekcowboy:

I'm not talking about what you are capable of receiving, I'm talking about throttling because they can't deliver the speeds 24/7 as advertised.

I'm also not talking about what you're capable of receiving. I'm talking about what the ISP is able to deliver to their entire customer base at any point.

No residential ISP could deliver the full speed to every customer at the same time. Not Ebox, not anyone. They all rely on overselling capacity, under the idea that not everyone uses their full speed at the same time. Some do a better job of managing that balance than others.

You might find it odd, but there are people who would rather have a higher speed that may go lower based on certain factors than a slower speed that won't.

It's quite simple, if an ISP is so completely incapable of providing a speed they are selling, then they should not be allowed to sell that service.

I know if I didn't receive what I paid for, I would move to a new ISP and have done so. There's also a complete difference between having congestion for an hour or so and puposely throttling a connection as a form of network maintenance

One is acceptable as there is nothing the ISP can do to avoid it except to upgrade their equipment (and while it may take a while, most do and most will also provide discounts for the degredation in service).

The other is completely unacceptable when an ISP is knowingly over-selling then covering that up by intentionally slowing down a customers connection and ruining their online experience and intentionally not delivering a service a customer is paying for. It's a horrible business practice and one that the majority of ISP's have moved away/are moving away from.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
The customer is getting what they're paying for - 5Mbps for the first 100GB of monthly transfer, and 1.5Mbps after that.

Or would you prefer 1.5Mbps for the entire month for the same price?

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

said by OHSrob:

If the limit is exceeded the connection is slowed to 1.5Mb/s down and 128k up until it resets the next month. You can still even stream netflix and youtube just fine at this speed at a reduced quality.

First, I apologize ahead of time if this is a bit harsh, but I've never had the opportunity to directly discuss this issue with an ISP so I'll be straight to the point.

I find it absolutely disgusting that any company throttles a connection. If your network cannot handle the speeds that you are offering 24/7 to all of your customers, then why do you offer it in the first place? And I don't want to hear this BS double-speak about "up to" speeds.

You wouldn't go to a gas station and pay for a full tank of gas and only receive half a tank and be OK with it would you? You wouldn't go to McDonald's and pay for a big mac and only get a cheeseburger would you? How would you like being told "too bad sir, you used too much gas today or ate too many big macs and while you paid for a full tank/big mac, we just don't have the stock to give you what you paid for!"

This attitude is absolutely ludicrous, and forgive me again for being frank, but absolutely no one should subscribe to your service unless absolutely necessary, IMHO. Though I guess when you're the only option for people, you can do pretty much whatever you want....

So you would prefer I charge a $500 max overcharge and offer limits from 2GB to 20GB like my competitors ?

I service rural areas many of them have less then 2 house per square km there is no wired services and I don't have an unlimited amount of radio spectrum.

Personally I feel that is unfair to assign a monetary value to how much bandwidth someone uses. Instead opted for usage quota instead with a high limit. It's unfortunate if you feel dont feel the same way.

All wireless services have limited capacity the users have to share from. From your wifi router to an LTE site. Many company's look at this as a way to make money. I look at it for what it is a limitation and took it into account.

A usage limit on wireless services requirement in this day and age to prevent a small percentage of users from using 100% of the bandwidth an causing congestion.

I do not feel having a congested service is acceptable business practice an am not willing to degrade my service to make less then 1% of potential urban users happy at the expense of the customers that use VoIP, VPNS and the gamers.

I also do not think descriming on specific types traffic is acceptable as false positives even with DPI happen.

I leave every service the web offers is untouched and full speed the way it is ment to be.

My competitors range from 2GB to 20GB limits and many of them experience congestion in the peak hours. I offer a 100GB limit an my network is always full speed and packet loss free.

Customers pay for 100GB at 5 megabits down your arguement makes no sense and you have no idea what you are talking about. I do not make false claims and call my service unlimited. It has a 100GB limit with no overcharges.

If you want a gas station annology, fine you get unlimited gas any time you want but after 100 liters your flow rate is reduced from 5 liters Per second to 1.5 liters per second and there is no extra expense. Or McDonald's giving you free big macs then the little doubles after you eat 100 of them in a month.

If need a bit more we have the business plan at 6megabits down 800k up and you get 120GB.

We also offer up to 10 up 10 down to enterprise businesses from 500GB up to unlimited.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to bt
said by bt:

The customer is getting what they're paying for - 5Mbps for the first 100GB of monthly transfer, and 1.5Mbps after that.

Or would you prefer 1.5Mbps for the entire month for the same price?

I would prefer an ISP to be upfront and just offer the 1.5Mbps without throttling for the whole month, yes. At least that is honest. Selling a package at 5mbps when they know ahead of time they are nowhere near capable of providing it then throttling is dirty, sneaky and I would have no part in any ISP that operates in this fashion. If they are this under-handed right off the bat, what else do they have up their sleeves.

Also, I've never seen an ISP structure or advertise a package like that with the exception of Acanac, which I commend them for. Most ISP's have no mention of throttling whatsoever.

What you typically get is an ISP who advertises a package of 5Mbps for xxx dollars per month and hide behind the "up to" clause and then throttle.

The "up to" clause was never intended to be used in this fashion. It was designed to cover issues such as distance and line quality/signal strength which may or may not determine if you can actually receive the full speed as advertised.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by rednekcowboy:

said by bt:

The customer is getting what they're paying for - 5Mbps for the first 100GB of monthly transfer, and 1.5Mbps after that.

Or would you prefer 1.5Mbps for the entire month for the same price?

I would prefer an ISP to be upfront and just offer the 1.5Mbps without throttling for the whole month, yes. At least that is honest.

Being up-front about the limits is being honest too. And I'll take the one that gives me 100GB of usage at a higher speed if it's the same price, since it flat-out gives me more for my money.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits
reply to morisato
Rob, you are correct as you do spell it out on your website and I jumped to conclusions without even checking. I do apologize for that. As you can see, throttling is a sore subject for me.

BT, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I do agree, in this case, that Rob is being upfront with his customers and commend him partially for that. HOWEVER I would still rather the lower speed option every time, as in the long run, for me, I would get more from it. As you can tell, I'm also dead-set against throttling of any kind. Instead of offereing 5/1.5 why not just go for a flat 2.5 and leave it at that?

I still stand by my view, as a customer that was a victim (as were most here) of throttling for a great number of years and continually lied to about it, that if you are unable to provide a certain speed, you should not be allowed to offer that speed.

Overselling is a very dangerous ground to be on and is a very delicate balancing act. One wrong move and all of your customers are affected. If everyone was honest and only sold what they were capable of providing, then there would be no issues anywhere. No need for "overage charges" (which is another subject in and of itself) or throttling. You would simply get what you pay for.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

said by bt:

The customer is getting what they're paying for - 5Mbps for the first 100GB of monthly transfer, and 1.5Mbps after that.

Or would you prefer 1.5Mbps for the entire month for the same price?

I would prefer an ISP to be upfront and just offer the 1.5Mbps without throttling for the whole month, yes. At least that is honest. Selling a package at 5mbps when they know ahead of time they are nowhere near capable of providing it then throttling is dirty, sneaky and I would have no part in any ISP that operates in this fashion. If they are this under-handed right off the bat, what else do they have up their sleeves.

Also, I've never seen an ISP structure or advertise a package like that with the exception of Acanac, which I commend them for. Most ISP's have no mention of throttling whatsoever.

What you typically get is an ISP who advertises a package of 5Mbps for xxx dollars per month and hide behind the "up to" clause and then throttle.

The "up to" clause was never intended to be used in this fashion. It was designed to cover issues such as distance and line quality/signal strength which may or may not determine if you can actually receive the full speed as advertised.

Well that's very ideological but given the market, not possible for a small provider.

It doesn't matter anyway, all of the providers in those rural areas more or less work the same way, OHS isn't any different. Satellite or non-cellular wireless you'll find the same thing. Now some of them don't throttle speed but you'll find you'll never get top speed for more than 1% of a billing period. So it's good they provide a bigger cap at least and set expectations.

As far as the "up to" clause well you may be right or wrong but that would be for a court to decide.

But then why do you care anyway, you likely live in an urban neighborhood so you'll never experience it.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to rednekcowboy
Every ISP - and allow me to reiterate EVERY - does some form of over subscription. That's just the way it's done. Goes back to the days of dial up, even... The goal is to have enough bandwidth available that customers don't have a negative experience, but not to have excess capacity sitting there unused.

The finite bandwidth available for WISPs using over the air backhaul can really tie their hands... It's very easy for a few heavy users to negatively impact the experience of many other users; depending on how the network is configured.

As for prohibiting streaming services - I've heard of several WISPs doing it, typically citing the "fair access" provisions within the ToS.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
Lets say an ISP has 10,000 customers, each capable of 5 Megabits/second downstream. They should then by your definition have 50 Gigabits/Second of transit to the Internet.

I can tell you right now, that's NOT going on ANYWHERE. That ISP would likely need somewhere near 2.5 Gigabits/Second of transit in the real world (and that is a generous estimate).
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

Rob, you are correct as you do spell it out on your website and I jumped to conclusions without even checking. I do apologize for that. As you can see, throttling is a sore subject for me.

I don't blame you for hating throttling I don't like traffic shaping at all either. What im doing isn't throttling in the traffic shaping sense.

The download speed is enforced by my PPPOE access concentrators. Upload speed is enforced at the CPE and PPPOE AC. I don't discriminate how fast some protocols can go.

If your pppoe account was created on say dec 12 and you ran out of usage on dec 30 it resets automatically on january 12 back to full speed. Because not every customer the same billing date it keeps who is slowed down to different times regulating the whole thing.

said by rednekcowboy:

I do agree, in this case, that Rob is being upfront with his customers and commend him partially for that. HOWEVER I would still rather the lower speed option every time, as in the long run, for me, I would get more from it. As you can tell, I'm also dead-set against throttling of any kind. Instead of offereing 5/1.5 why not just go for a flat 2.5 and leave it at that?

1.5 megabit's per second was chosen because it is the minimum speed you need to use any service on the internet properly. I plan to increase this to 2megabit's in select area's that have less heavy users.

said by rednekcowboy:

I still stand by my view, as a customer that was a victim (as were most here) of throttling for a great number of years and continually lied to about it, that if you are unable to provide a certain speed, you should not be allowed to offer that speed.

I don't think you understand how wireless works. I can't exactly go run my own fiber optic cable where ever I want and start running VDSL. I own a DSLAM and would love to offer unlimited ADSL service in a few markets particularly around ritson road in oshawa in a portion that cannot be covered by wireless. But it is costly and not very easy to get permission to do.

I do plan to use fiber to the node with my wireless in the future but don't presently have a big enough customer base to justify it or the need I can move about 80megabits tcp in 20mhz of radio spectrum. Rural fiber is expensive even if the pop is in front of your tower.

said by rednekcowboy:

Overselling is a very dangerous ground to be on and is a very delicate balancing act. One wrong move and all of your customers are affected. If everyone was honest and only sold what they were capable of providing, then there would be no issues anywhere. No need for "overage charges" (which is another subject in and of itself) or throttling. You would simply get what you pay for.

We do not oversell.

We had congestion once for a few weeks due to delays from Bell Canada when we had our fiber optic circuit to be installed. Only two customer's out of 80 at the time noticed it one of them used voip pretty much 24/7. The other plays alot of online video games and noticed he was experiencing jitter.

Bell took 9 months to install the fiber that they told us would probably take 3 months but its all long resolved now. Other then a provisioning issue on bell's behalf it was smooth sailing after that.

We can order more bandwidth for our main pop with just a phone call now and have 12 strands of fiber ready to go as well as access to the EORN network if we require.

Like every wireless network we are limited by the amount of radio spectrum we have at our disposal. However I am positive I make better use of it then other providers.

I have many customers who use voip for their home phones and love it on my service. You can run speedtest.net the any time and get the full speed of the connection.

said by mlerner:

said by rednekcowboy:

said by bt:

The customer is getting what they're paying for - 5Mbps for the first 100GB of monthly transfer, and 1.5Mbps after that.

Or would you prefer 1.5Mbps for the entire month for the same price?

I would prefer an ISP to be upfront and just offer the 1.5Mbps without throttling for the whole month, yes. At least that is honest. Selling a package at 5mbps when they know ahead of time they are nowhere near capable of providing it then throttling is dirty, sneaky and I would have no part in any ISP that operates in this fashion. If they are this under-handed right off the bat, what else do they have up their sleeves.

Also, I've never seen an ISP structure or advertise a package like that with the exception of Acanac, which I commend them for. Most ISP's have no mention of throttling whatsoever.

What you typically get is an ISP who advertises a package of 5Mbps for xxx dollars per month and hide behind the "up to" clause and then throttle.

The "up to" clause was never intended to be used in this fashion. It was designed to cover issues such as distance and line quality/signal strength which may or may not determine if you can actually receive the full speed as advertised.

Well that's very ideological but given the market, not possible for a small provider.

It doesn't matter anyway, all of the providers in those rural areas more or less work the same way, OHS isn't any different. Satellite or non-cellular wireless you'll find the same thing. Now some of them don't throttle speed but you'll find you'll never get top speed for more than 1% of a billing period. So it's good they provide a bigger cap at least and set expectations.

As far as the "up to" clause well you may be right or wrong but that would be for a court to decide.

I may use the same equipment as many other providers but my service does not experience the slow down the other providers you have used.

Many providers will load networks full with no respect for capacity or equipment limitations, Some will even go and install people with far too weak signal's to use the service properly.

I do not hide behind the up to for that reason its just there because every other company has it and I don't want someone thinking they have an SLA.

My customers all get the full speed unless the limit is exceeded if they are not seeing the full speed they call or email me and I will get it resolved.

I ask my customers run a speedtest to speedtest.net and let me know the result. My network does not experience congestion.

said by LazMan:

Every ISP - and allow me to reiterate EVERY - does some form of over subscription. That's just the way it's done. Goes back to the days of dial up, even... The goal is to have enough bandwidth available that customers don't have a negative experience, but not to have excess capacity sitting there unused.

The finite bandwidth available for WISPs using over the air backhaul can really tie their hands... It's very easy for a few heavy users to negatively impact the experience of many other users; depending on how the network is configured.

As for prohibiting streaming services - I've heard of several WISPs doing it, typically citing the "fair access" provisions within the ToS.

I would rather leave the last of the bandwidth 20% unused and suspend sign ups then degrade the quality of my service to the end user.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I find it absolutely disgusting that any company throttles a connection. If your network cannot handle the speeds that you are offering 24/7 to all of your customers, then why do you offer it in the first place? And I don't want to hear this BS double-speak about "up to" speeds.

Spoken like somebody who's never run a real network in the real world.


swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

It's quite simple, if an ISP is so completely incapable of providing a speed they are selling, then they should not be allowed to sell that service.

I think users who do not understand how something works should not make incorrect statements...but I digress...

Are you going to cancel your public water service into your home since they could not possibly deliver water to everyone if we all turned on our taps?

Might as well cancel your electricity service as well as we see time and time again (especially during the summer) that demand outpaces supply at times of the day.

No ISP can give full speeds to all users if everyone maxed their connection at once in an area. Even more so with wireless ISPs but even DSl and cable is not immune.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
said by swintec:

Might as well cancel your electricity service as well as we see time and time again (especially during the summer) that demand outpaces supply at times of the day.

Probably not the best analogy. The electrical generation system in North America is designed to allow for peak demand by switching generation resources in and out of the grid when demand increases and decreases. The failure to do so is seen as a serious flaw in the generation system. The problem is that utilities have to be able to predict demand, and have elaborate models to do so. The imperfection in the models or lack of generation resources causes demand to outpace supply.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits
said by DKS:

said by swintec:

Might as well cancel your electricity service as well as we see time and time again (especially during the summer) that demand outpaces supply at times of the day.

Probably not the best analogy. The electrical generation system in North America is designed to allow for peak demand by switching generation resources in and out of the grid when demand increases and decreases. The failure to do so is seen as a serious flaw in the generation system. The problem is that utilities have to be able to predict demand, and have elaborate models to do so. The imperfection in the models or lack of generation resources causes demand to outpace supply.

Not only that but public utilities is a whole different ball of wax altogether and cannot be compared to a privately run organization selling a service/product to the general public for profit Doing so is just idiotic.

If you want to use an analogy, I offered 2 on the first page that draw a direct correlation, though I notice every one that is objecting to my statements won't touch those with a 10ft pole!

Please keep in mind, I understand perfectly how it works today and have demonstrated that. I do not agree with it. It's kind of like selling phantom stocks that don't exist to boost a market share. That is unacceptable so what I don't understand is why this isn't. If a company doesn't have the product to sell, they shouldn't be allowed to sell it, that's just logical/common sense.

Again, you wouldn't walk into McDonalds, pay for a Big Mac and walk away with a cheeseburger, being told that's all you can have because you ate too many big macs today and while you paid for a big mac, they have to think of everyone else who comes into the restaurant who want big macs so a cheeseburger is all you have.

Selling a product or service that you knowingly cannot provide is an extremely shady business practice and should be illegal to do so. In fact, it is illegal in any other line of business in the private sector. I can't sell you a product if I don't have it in my possession, that's called fraud.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by rednekcowboy:

If you want to use an analogy, I offered 2 on the first page that draw a direct correlation, though I notice every one that is objecting to my statements won't touch those with a 10ft pole!

This isn't similar to either analogy you presented. To use gas and food, this is far closer to rationing.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

If you want to use an analogy, I offered 2 on the first page that draw a direct correlation, though I notice every one that is objecting to my statements won't touch those with a 10ft pole!

Your gasoline analogy isn't quite on, either. Gasoline is no longer "gasoline" but now includes blended ethanol. It's "fuel", not "gasoline".

As for the rest of your argument,there are significant technical considerations such as distance from the CO and line quality which have a huge impact on DSL speed. It is truly "up to",depending on any number of variables.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by DKS:

said by rednekcowboy:

If you want to use an analogy, I offered 2 on the first page that draw a direct correlation, though I notice every one that is objecting to my statements won't touch those with a 10ft pole!

Your gasoline analogy isn't quite on, either. Gasoline is no longer "gasoline" but now includes blended ethanol. It's "fuel", not "gasoline".

As for the rest of your argument,there are significant technical considerations such as distance from the CO and line quality which have a huge impact on DSL speed. It is truly "up to",depending on any number of variables.

I'm not talking about those factors, I'm talking about the use of traffic shaping.

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08

3 edits
said by rednekcowboy:

said by DKS:

said by rednekcowboy:

If you want to use an analogy, I offered 2 on the first page that draw a direct correlation, though I notice every one that is objecting to my statements won't touch those with a 10ft pole!

Your gasoline analogy isn't quite on, either. Gasoline is no longer "gasoline" but now includes blended ethanol. It's "fuel", not "gasoline".

As for the rest of your argument,there are significant technical considerations such as distance from the CO and line quality which have a huge impact on DSL speed. It is truly "up to",depending on any number of variables.

I'm not talking about those factors, I'm talking about the use of traffic shaping.

I already stated multiple times I DO NOT TRAFFIC SHAPE.

Changing the rate limiting is not traffic shaping in any way shape or form I am not discriminating on specific types of traffic.

edit: The hydro and water analogy are the only close to right ones here. I am NOT selling a physical product you can hold or consume and the only thing that runs out if I failed to keep things in check is the capacity. (And because I have this policy and don't oversubscribe I don't have capacity problems)

edit: Redneckcowboy I guess you think since teksavvy puts about 1000 users on each AGAS that has a gigabit total. (leaving 1 megabit per person) that this is unacceptable too ?.

E-box does exactly the same thing so does every provider in the world.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by OHSrob:

I already stated multiple times I DO NOT TRAFFIC SHAPE.

Changing the rate limiting is not traffic shaping in any way shape or form I am not discriminating on specific types of traffic.

edit: The hydro and water analogy are the only close to right ones here. I am NOT selling a physical product you can hold or consume and it does NOT run out.

That wasn't directed to you Rob, however you are selling a consumable product, much like "fuel" and limiting bandwidth in and of itself is traffic shaping, whether or not you choose to call it that is up to you. The very nature of the "necessity" of you doing this (according to you) also shows that other users will be affected if you don't do this, so it technically also does "run out" as you put it.

Again, the hydro and water are public, government run organizations and you cannot compare that to a privately run business. The two analogies I provided correlate exactly, whether or not you chose to answer them or decide to twist it around in another shape or form, is up to you.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by rednekcowboy:

The two analogies I provided correlate exactly

No they don't.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
said by bt:

said by rednekcowboy:

The two analogies I provided correlate exactly

No they don't.

Wow, that's informative!